ATAG 'usabillity test'

Hi Jan,

An aspect I asked my colleague to look at when reviewing Defacto was "How do you interpret the guidelines presented (including implementation guideance)."

He is a newer member of the team, so brings some fresh eyes to it. He does know WCAG well, but reviewing Defacto with ATAG was his first contact with it.

I've attached his interpretation of each guideline, i.e. what he took as the core requirement (not including caveats) etc.
I checked through and his interpretation generally matched mine, which I hope is good otherwise I've missed something!

Only two queries came up:

1.       A.4.2.1 & A.4.2.2: "It was difficult to understand the difference between A.4.2.1 and A.4.2.2 and why one was to single A standards and the other to double A.
It sounds like the reason for this is A.4.2.1 is more essential because those features are accessibility features, whereas A.4.2.2 is referring to generic features that would be nice to document but not (as) essential."


2.       B.2.1: Does that then imply that attributes such as "longdesc" must be included? (We don't currently, but recommend standard links to pages with the long description on.)
Also, there are lots of references to "HTML4" in the implementation guidance, should it just say "HTML" to imply the currently relevant version of HTML?

I should make the call, but might have to duck out.

-Alastair